The RTI filed with the government had request sought details about the number of applications received through the indiancitizenshiponline.nic.in portal, the number of people granted citizenship under the CAA, and the number of pending applications. However, the MHA stated that no such data was being maintained, citing the provisions of the Citizenship Act, 1955, and the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, which do not require records to be kept of citizenship applications. Similarly, in response to an RTI filed by Maharashtra resident Ajay Bose on April 15, 2024. The MHA reiterated that there was no obligation to maintain such records, and as per the RTI Act, the CPIO is not authorized to create new information, treating the requested data as unavailable.

The MHA notified the CAA rules on March 11, 2024, enabling the implementation of the Act just before the 2024 general elections. The CAA, passed by Parliament on December 11, 2019, provides a pathway for undocumented migrants from six non-Muslim communities—Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, and Christians—who came from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, or Pakistan before December 31, 2014, to apply for Indian citizenship. The Act also reduces the residency requirement for citizenship from 11 years to five years for these particular communities, leaving out certain other communities such as Muslims.

It is essential to highlight here that while the total number of beneficiaries under the CAA remains uncertain, Union Home Minister Amit Shah stated during a Rajya Sabha debate on December 11, 2019, that “lakhs and crores” of people would benefit. However, the Director of the Intelligence Bureau (IB) presented a more conservative figure, testifying before a parliamentary committee that around 31,000 individuals would be the immediate beneficiaries. According to a parliamentary report tabled on January 7, 2019, 31,313 individuals from minority communities had been issued long-term visas based on their claims of religious persecution in their home countries. These include 25,447 Hindus, 5,807 Sikhs, 55 Christians, 2 Buddhists, and 2 Parsis, who were expected to be immediate beneficiaries of the CAA.

On May 15, 2024, a press release by the MHA provided that the first set of citizenship certificates under the CAA was issued to 14 people. Additionally, the MHA had also specified that many other applicants are being given digitally signed certificates through email. As per The Hindu, more than 300 people who applied under the CAA have been granted citizenship.

Related:

Kin of incarcerated anti-CAA activists question Selective use of ‘Bail is the Rule’ principle

First set of citizenship certificates issued to over 300 under CAA: MHA

Kolkata man commits suicide, family claims CAA rules led him to it

BJP’s Tathagata Roy calls for CAA procedures to conduct genitalia check to confirm religion

The post MHA says data on CAA citizenship applicants not maintained, cites lack of record -keeping provisions to RTI appeared first on SabrangIndia.

As per the statement, the MHA provided that “The process of granting citizenship certificates under the Citizenship (Amendment) Rules, 2024 has now commenced in the state of West Bengal, where the first set of applications from the State were today granted citizenship by the Empowered Committee, West Bengal. Similarly, the Empowered Committees of the states of Haryana and Uttarakhand have also granted citizenship today to the first set of applicants in their respective States, under the Citizenship (Amendment) Rules, 2024.”

It is to be noted that the number of people to whom the citizenship certificates were granted have not been mentioned. As per a report of the Hindu, a source had provided that at least eight Hindu migrants from Bangladesh were granted citizenship in West Bengal. It is crucial to highlight here that in the upcoming seventh phase of voting for the Lok Sabha elections on June 1, which is also going to be the last phase, votes will be casted in at least nine constituencies of the state of West Bengal. These parliamentary constituencies are Dum Dum, Barasat, Basirhat, Jaynagar, Mathurapur, Diamond Harbour, Jadavpur, Kolkata Dakshin, Kolkata Uttar.

West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee have ardently been opposing the CAA a, according to her, it curtails constitutional rights of the people and promotes religion-based discrimination. The union government, and especially Union home minister Amit Shah, had on multiple occasions asserted that CM Mamata Banerjee won’t be able to stop the BJP government from implementing CAA in West Bengal.

This is the second time that the MHA has granted citizenship to a group of eligible candidates since the Citizenship (Amendment) Rules, 2024 were notified on March 11, 2024. Prior to this, on May 15, a press release by the MHA had provided that the first set of citizenship certificates under the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 (CAA) was issued to more than 300 people. A total of 14 people were physically handed over the certificates. Previously too, the country of origin of the applicants was not made known in the press release. The report of The Hindu had provided that a government source had suggested that most applicants were Pakistani Hindus.

The Rules grant the final authority to accord citizenship to an empowered committee headed by a Director, Census Operations. The scrutiny of applications filed online on indiancitizenshiponline.nic.in was done by a district-level committee (DLC) headed by postal department officials. The Rules say that the applicants must provide any of nine specified documents tracing their roots to Bangladesh, Pakistan and Afghanistan. On successful verification of documents, the DLCs administered the oath of allegiance to the applicants. The portal is said to have received more than 25,000 applications so far.

Related:

First set of citizenship certificates issued to over 300 under CAA: MHA

Kolkata man commits suicide, family claims CAA rules led him to it

CAA: An attempt to legitimise expansionist nationalism

CAA disregards India’s inclusive plural ethos, ‘betrays’ ideals of freedom struggle: PUCL

Government notifies CAA regulations, opposition decries it as a means to polarise voters

The post MHA grants citizenship to applicants from West Bengal, Haryana, Uttarakhand; number of those granted citizenship not revealed appeared first on SabrangIndia.

It is essential to note that the ministry has also specified that many other applicants are being given digitally signed certificates through email. As per the Hindu, more than 300 people who applied under the CAA have been granted citizenship. While the country of origin of the applicants was not made known in the press release, the report of The Hindu provided that a government source had suggested that most applicants were Pakistani Hindus.

As per media reports, while disbursing the certificates, Mr. Bhalla highlighted the salient features of the Citizenship Amendment Rules, 2024, through which the implementation of the CAA was ensured. The Rules grant the final authority to accord citizenship to an empowered committee headed by the Director, Census Operations, while the scrutiny of applications filed online on the portal indiancitizenshiponline.nic.in was done by a district level committee (DLC) headed by Department of Post officials. On successful verification of documents, the DLCs administered the oath of allegiance to the applicants. The portal is said to have received over 25,000 applications so far, as provided by The Hindu. The Secretary, Posts; the Director, Intelligence Bureau; the Registrar General of India, and senior officers were also present during the interactive session.

The press release by the MHA can be read here:

Related:

Kolkata man commits suicide, family claims CAA rules led him to it

CAA: An attempt to legitimise expansionist nationalism

CAA disregards India’s inclusive plural ethos, ‘betrays’ ideals of freedom struggle: PUCL

Government notifies CAA regulations, opposition decries it as a means to polarise voters

The post First set of citizenship certificates issued to over 300 under CAA: MHA appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Roy was originally from Netaji Nagar in Kolkata, but he had gone to his maternal grandparents’ residence for a visit and was staying there before the  incident unfolded. According to police reports, Debashish’s family found him hanging on the night of March 20 and rushed him to a nearby hospital, where he was pronounced dead upon arrival.

Debashish’s father, Tapan Sengupta, has alleged that his son often expressed fears about the implications of the CAA and how he would prove his citizenship if the need arose. As per a report by the Indian Express, Tapan Sengupta described the situation in the police complaint, “…Since the announcement of the notification of CAA, my son had been suffering from mental trauma and agony and was also in acute fear psychosis for not having all the required documents as prescribed in the said notification…”

According to the Deccan Chronicle, he has urged the police to prevent such incidents, and termed the CAA as a ‘draconian Act.’

According to the New Indian Express, Debashish’s relatives have claimed that he had been experiencing panic attacks ever since the announcement of the implementation of the CAA. Furthermore, he has been particularly worried about his father who is bedridden and had migrated from Bangladesh but lacks proper documentation of his migration.

In response to the situation, the BJP has slammed the TMC in turn for creating fear in the minds of citizens. A delegation from the Trinamool Congress (TMC), led by state minister Shashi Panja visited Debashish’s family the following day. Similarly, Srijan Bhattacharya, the Communist Party of India (Marxist) candidate for the Jadavpur constituency also offered his condolences and criticised both the TMC and the BJP for politicising the CAA issue, according to Indian Express.

In 2019, chief minister of West Bengal, Mamata Bannerjee had claimed that over 11 people had committed suicide in fear of being sent to detention camps.

Similarly, Assam Rajya Sabha MP Sushmita Dev has slammed the BJP for bringing the law, saying what happened in Assam is now happening in West Bengal, “In Assam, during the NRC rollout, many took their lives, uncertain of their citizenship. Now, Bengal faces the same tragic reality after the CAA notification.” Assam has seen the implementation of the National Registry of Citizens process. The process has seen over 19 lakh people declared excluded from the list. Several people in the state have committed suicide due to the fear of being sent to detention camps. As the government recently notified rules for th CAA, Assam has been up in protests. Citizens for Justice and Peace had reported in 2019 of a 70 year Hindu man who had been forced to kill himself in Assam after he was declared stateless. iN 2019, CJP had provided a list of 51 names people understood to have died by suicide in Assam  after Assam’s first updated draft of NRC was released in 2018.

Related:

CAA: An attempt to legitimise expansionist nationalism

Selective & discriminatory, CAA notification likely to be followed by NPR-NRC

Government notifies CAA regulations, opposition decries it as a means to polarise voters

Assam: ‘No Aadhaar, No Citizenship, So No Vote to BJP’, said a Citizens Convention

Gauhati University is under complete lockdown, as protests against the CAA implementation spread across Assam, fears of the 2019 repression and loss of life…

The post Kolkata man commits suicide, family claims CAA rules led him to it appeared first on SabrangIndia.

TMC is raining disinformation in West Bengal about CAA. Chances of people being misled are increasing by the day. Union Home Ministry must wake up and CLARIFY THE FOLLOWING WITHOUT DELAY:
1. How would a Hindu fugitive from Islamic torture in Bangladesh who entered India with only…

— Tathagata Roy (@tathagata2) March 17, 2024

On March 17, the TMC immediately responded to the statement, where the party’s Rajya Sabha MP Mamata Thakur called the statement part of a regressive mind-set and an insult to Bengal and its people.

Today, former Governor of Meghalaya and ex-@BJP4Bengal State President, @tathagata2, sunk to new depths of BIGOTRY by suggesting that clinical tests should be performed to determine one’s religion based on circumcision, and citizenship should be granted accordingly.

This… pic.twitter.com/jNDfvlBDPh

— All India Trinamool Congress (@AITCofficial) March 17, 2024

The former BJP West Bengal state president is no stranger to raking controversy with his words. In 2019, he gave a statement in support of a retired army colonel who had called for the boycott of Kashmiris and Kashmiri goods, according to the Indian Express.

A day after his statement, Roy, who describes himself on his X account as “Right-wing Hindu thinker,” clamped back at the uproar and said there can be only two possible scenarios for the uproar. One, he says, could be that people are trying to hide their Muslim identity out of fear of being excluded from the CAA benefits, or secondly, those criticising his suggestion lack education and “have never faced a medical examination.”

He also stated in another reply to a post criticising him on the website, remarking “Big deal about checking whether a male is circumcised or not!”

Kunal Ghosh, senior TMC leader, also commented on the issue, saying that Roy has been “crossing all boundaries.”  “We HAVE NO tolerance towards bigots who perpetuate religious discrimination in the form of such lowly and vulgar jibes, which also reflects upon the ridiculous narratives that @BJP4India enables and promotes in the country.”

The BJP-led government recently notified the rules for implementing the CAA in March, just days before the Model Code of Conduct for the upcoming Lok Sabha elections was about to be implemented.

The recently notified CAA seeks to grant citizenship to people belonging to Hindu, Jain, Christian, Sikh, Buddhist, and Parsi communities who have migrated to India on or before December 31, 2014, from Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. This move has restarted the debate over the CAA’s implications for religious minorities and immigration policies in India after the act received widespread protests in 2019-2020.

Opposition parties, including the Trinamool Congress, have criticised the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), decrying it as discriminatory. West Bengal Chief Minister and Trinamool Congress leader Mamata Banerjee has also called the CAA as a mere “election gimmick,” and has stated that its implementation is designed to oppress certain communities.

According to India Today, Banerjee has also declared that her government in West Bengal will not enforce the CAA.

Related:

Report: 668 incidents of hate speech in 2023; BJP major player

Assam: ‘No Aadhaar, No Citizenship, So No Vote to BJP’, said a Citizens Convention

CAA: An attempt to legitimise expansionist nationalism

CAA disregards India’s inclusive plural ethos, ‘betrays’ ideals of freedom struggle: PUCL

The post BJP’s Tathagata Roy calls for CAA procedures to conduct genitalia check to confirm religion appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The topic of the convention was the deprivation of 27 lakhs people from being issued Aadhaar as well as the citizenship crisis in Assam. The convention saw authors, thinkers, advocates, activists, poets, trade union leaders speak at the convention. The presiding community included Dr. Mrinmoy Deb, Rafiq Ahmed, Subrata Nath, Mrinal Kanti Shome, Haider Hossain Chowdhury,  Nanda Ghosh,  Atarjan Begum Majumdar, Snigdha Nath, and Khadeja Begum.

Deliberations

Nowhere within the Aadhaar Act or the Citizenship Act (1955) is there any provision for the collection of biometric data or provisions prohibiting the issuance of the Aadhaar card to those in any way involved in enumeration in the ongoing National Register of Citizens (NRC) process. Additionally, the Supreme Court has not provided clear direction on this matter. However, despite this, during the claims and objection stage, the state government of Assam, in collaboration with the Aadhaar authority, has unilaterally, collected biometric data from approximately 27 lakh individuals and denied them Aadhaar cards!

This action is reportedly based on a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP).  While the SOP has also stipulated that Aadhaar cards would be issued directly to verify those whose names were included after the publication of the final NRC, however, despite it being four years since the publication of the final draft of the NRC, this provision has not been implemented! People who have been awaiting their Aadhaar card for five years are encountering insurmountable difficulties and experiencing harassment at the hands of authorities..

On August 11, 2022, the Aadhaar authority issued an office memorandum allowing those who were enrolled but had not received an Aadhaar card to use any identity card bearing their enrolment number as an alternative. This directive specifically benefited the 27 lakh affected people. However, despite this provision, various state and central government departments have been reluctant to accept these alternative identity cards.

These and related discussions at the Convention, held on Sunday, shed light on this  troubling trend where the Aadhaar has been deliberately withheld to cause hardship, particularly among economically disadvantaged people. This conclusion is bolstered by the inconsistent statements made by the Chief Minister of Assam, Himanto Biswa Sarma on different occasions. In a recent speech, for instance, he indicated that issuing of Aadhaar would only resume after the elections and following discussions with organisations such as the All Assam Students Union (AASU). This statement, without legal or moral basis, was strongly criticised at the meeting.

In this regard, the organisation Forum for Social Harmony has, last month, sent a public petition to the Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, Union Home Minister, Amit Shah, and Assam Chief Minister, Himanto Biswa Sarma to issue Aadhaar before the elections, with a detailed legal explanation. There was a strong sentiment reiterated at Sunday’s convention that the state government must and should arrange to issue the withheld Aadhaar before the elections.

In March, 2022 Citizens for Justice and peace (CJP) also filed a PIL before the Gauhati High Court with regards to people left out from getting Aadhar, even after being included in the NRC.  Relying on the Aadhar Act 2016, CJP has argued that the UDAI identification has no connection to citizenship at all. This petition has been heard several times and is pending in the Gauhati High Court.

In the context of the discussion on citizenship, it is clear that before 2003 there was no need to submit any documents while applying for citizenship and anyone could apply. In 2003, the Vajpayee government first defined illegal migrants and disqualified them from applying for citizenship. The statutory provision (section 14A) in Citizenship Act for preparation of NRC and the Rules were framed that year. Even the provision of citizenship by birth has been virtually abolished in India.

A speaker at the convention questioned the need for the CAA 2019, because, they argued, in 2015, two circulars were published and non-Muslims from three countries including Bangladesh were already proclaimed not to be illegal immigrants. So, now the question arises, why there is a need at all for a separate Citizenship Amendment Act for those who are exempt from the definition of illegal migrants? After four years of its passage, more complicated rules and procedures are made requiring documents that most do not have when they are seeking citizenship. So, again it becomes clear that the real objective is not to grant citizenship. The complicated procedure laid down in the recently enacted rules clearly shows that the union government is not simply asking an individual to not declare  himself as a foreigner but also asking for documentary proof of a person being a foreigner and only thereafter apply for citizenship.

Another of the speakers at the convention mentioned that it is clear from this that the far-reaching objective of the government is to change the relationship between the state and the citizens and convert stateless impoverished people into cheap labour through complicated legal procedures.

Similarly concerns were expressed over the pending appeal process of the NRC for more than four years after the final publication of NRC on August 31, 2019.  Furthermore, the convention had a unanimous consensus at the end that proposed all voters whose names are in the electoral roll of 2014 should be recognised as citizens and Aadhaar must be given to all. The slogan, ‘No Aadhaar, No Citizenship- So No Vote to BJP’, rang through at the convention.  The meeting also highlighted the demand for the implementation of Enrollment ID as an alternative to Aadhaar. The final course of action decided was for a mass campaign to take place after the upcoming elections.

Some of the speakers at the event included advocate  Shishir Dey, advocate  Subrata Paul, Kamal Chakraborty, Sanjeev Roy, Asit Roy, Joydeep Bhattacharya, Ripon Das, Arup Baishya, Atarjan Begum Majumdar, Rafique Ahmed, Subrata Nath, Hillol Bhattacharya, Haidar Hossain Chowdhury, Subrata Nath,  Haider Hossain Chowdhury,  Majumdar, Khadeja Begum, Nanda Ghosh and Dr. Mrinmay Deb.

Related:

Selective & discriminatory, CAA notification likely to be followed by NPR-NRC

Creating an NPR for an all India NRC without informed consent?

Identifying fake Aadhaar, a plot to bring in CAA-NRC?

Assam: CAG report points out ‘large scale anomalies’ in NRC updation software

The post Assam: ‘No Aadhaar, No Citizenship, So No Vote to BJP’, said a Citizens Convention appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Recently, the Indian government made it clear that the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) also aims to further the concept of United India, or Akhand Bharat (see interview of Amit Shah to ANI on March 14, 2024, also available on the NDTV website). However, critics see the concept of Akhand Bharat as an attempt to build a theocratic state based on Hindutva ideology, which lacks nuance and could be detrimental to South Asia’s regional stability as well as international peace. Any call for Akhand Bharat would give rise to India’s ambitions for expansion, endangering the peace and security of the area. This demand ignores the goals and sovereignty of surrounding countries, which fuels tensions on the geopolitical, ethnic, and religious fronts, particularly in South Asia. It is critical to comprehend the larger implications of this law and the disastrous situation it may create if not rolled back. While the CAA may seem like a well-intentioned legislation aimed at giving expedited citizenship to persecuted minorities from neighbouring countries, a closer examination reveals a sectarian law that ignores international obligations and goes against India’s constitutional ethos.

Why CAA unconstitutional, illegal and unethical

In 2019, the Indian Parliament passed the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), a law that has stirred controversy and division within the country. The CAA deviates from the fundamental principles of the Indian Constitution, as it is discriminatory towards Muslims, who form a minority group in India. The law intends to provide citizenship rights based solely on religion to religious minorities from neighbouring nations, which goes against Article 14 of the Indian Constitution and is fundamentally unfeasible. The Citizenship Act of 1955 outlines five methods to obtain Indian citizenship, such as birth, descent, registration, naturalisation and the incorporation of a region into India. However, the CAA contradicts these methods and instead, bases citizenship on one’s religion. The “reasonable classification” defence taken by the government is not tenable under the eyes of the law. Rather it is not “reasonable classification” but “class legislation” hence fundamentally wrong and unconstitutional. Moreover, the CAA also hit the Preamble of the Indian Constitution which declared that India is a secular, democratic republic.

The Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) flagrantly contravenes the principles of plural and heterogeneous society, equality, and justice enshrined in the Constitution of India. By introducing the concept of citizenship based solely on religious identity, the CAA discriminates against those who do not belong to the specified religious minorities. This not only violates the fundamental tenet of secularism, which is integral to the Constitution, but also undermines a host of other fundamental rights, such as the right to equal treatment under the law (Article 14), neutrality of the State with respect to religion (Articles 15 and 16), freedom of religion (Articles 25, 26, 27, and 28), and enhanced protection to minorities (Articles 29 and 30). The CAA is therefore ultra vires and must be challenged as a gross violation of the Constitution and the basic feature of secularism.

It’s worth noting that the standard period of eleven years for foreign nationals who are lawfully residing in the country cannot be altered to six years for a particular group of people as specified by the CAA. Doing so violates Article 14 of the Constitution, as it is both arbitrary and discriminatory. Additionally, the selection of the cut-off date is arbitrary and runs contrary to the Constitutional principle of equity and natural justice as outlined in the CAA rules. While the Parliament has the authority to designate December 31, 2014, as the expiry date for the classification of certain immigrants as citizens, such a decision must be logical and consistent with the Act’s stated objective. The CAA rules specifically zeroed on the deadline of 31 December 2014, and citizenship benefits will be given only to those who entered India as illegal immigrants before the above deadline. Shockingly, there is no evidence to suggest that the migration that occurred before December 31st, 2014, was solely due to religious persecution. Therefore, this decision must be reconsidered and aligned with the principles of fairness and equality that are enshrined in our Constitution. It is unclear why the deadline for migration was set for December 31st, 2014, and what will happen to those who migrated after that date. Furthermore, it begs the question as to why the CAA is not providing benefits to those who have migrated illegally after the stipulated deadline.

The current form of CAA and the latest rules rolled out present inconsistencies and inherent complexities of this contentious legislation. Given that persecution of minorities is an ongoing issue, why was a deadline of December 31, 2014 put in place? It appears that the CAA is being used to send a clear message that Muslims will not be included in this pathway. It is incorrect to claim that there are no persecuted Muslim groups in the surrounding area. The Act effectively creates a religious-based distinction in how migrants, persecuted minorities, and refugees are treated. Its ultimate goal seems to be the transformation of Indian citizenship and the reinforcement of the notion that Muslims are not a natural part of India.

CAA-basically a sectarian law

The CAA indeed introduces amendments to the Citizenship Act of 1955, ostensibly to provide a pathway to Indian citizenship for undocumented immigrants from neighbouring countries who belong to specific religious communities. Firstly, the Act’s selective inclusion of certain religious groups while excluding others has been a focal point of criticism. By offering a route to citizenship exclusively to Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, and Christians, the Act conspicuously omits Muslims. This exclusionary approach has elicited allegations of religious discrimination, fundamentally challenging the secular character of India as enshrined in its Constitution. Critics argue that such preferential treatment based on religion violates the principle of equality before the law and undermines the foundational ethos of India as a secular, pluralistic democracy.

The emphasis on religious identity as a criterion for acquiring citizenship under the Act raises concerns about the state’s role in determining citizenship. Citizenship has traditionally been based on factors such as birth, descent, or naturalisation, rather than religious affiliation. The Act’s introduction of religion as a defining factor sets a precedent that could potentially politicize and communalize the citizenship process, thus altering the secular fabric of the nation. In addition, the Act’s geographical scope, which focuses solely on migrants from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan, adds another layer of complexity. Critics argue that by singling out these countries, the Act implicitly targets Muslims, who are the majority population in Bangladesh and Pakistan. This geopolitical dimension reinforces the perception of religious bias inherent in the Act’s provisions. Moreover, the Act excludes the religious minorities of Bhutan, Sri Lanka, China, and Myanmar, and there is no clarity as to why this is the case.

The CAA’s proponents contend that the primary aim of this legislation was to alleviate the suffering of religious minorities that are persecuted in bordering Islamic nations-Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan. They argue that specific laws are needed to protect Christians, Parsis, Jains, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, and Buddhists from systematic discrimination and persecution in these countries. Constitutional experts contend that the CAA’s limited focus on religious persecution ignores other types of oppression people experience because of their gender, caste, political convictions, or linguistic identity. This selective approach weakens the humanitarian aim of the Act by perpetuating a hierarchy of suffering and undermining the universality of human rights. Further, the CAA rules explained the type of religious persecution in Pakistan and Bangladesh but nothing mentioned about what kind of persecution is being orchestrated in Afghanistan.

The CAA’s enactment ignited widespread protests across India, with demonstrators decrying it as unconstitutional and divisive. The issue of religious discrimination has galvanized various segments of society, including civil society groups, opposition parties, and religious minorities, who have vociferously opposed the Act on moral, legal, and ethical grounds. The current structure of the Citizenship Amendment Act 2019 represents a contentious departure from India’s secular ethos, introducing religious identity as a criterion for citizenship while excluding Muslims. The Act’s selective inclusion of certain religious groups raises concerns of discrimination and communal polarization, challenging the foundational principles of equality and secularism enshrined in the Indian Constitution. The ensuing debates underscore the imperative of upholding India’s secular fabric while addressing legitimate concerns regarding persecution and the protection of vulnerable communities. 

CAA is a gross violation of international law

The Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) 2019, through its selective treatment of immigrants based on religion, indeed represents a flagrant violation of various international treaties and conventions to which India is a signatory party. The Act’s provisions directly contravene fundamental principles enshrined in key international instruments, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) 1966, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) 1965, the UN Convention against Torture, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) 1948.The ICCPR, a cornerstone of international human rights law, unequivocally prohibits discrimination on various grounds, including religion. Article 2 of the ICCPR mandates that all individuals are entitled to the rights and freedoms set forth in the Covenant without discrimination of any kind, including on the basis of religion. By granting preferential treatment to immigrants belonging to specific religious groups while excluding others, the CAA blatantly violates this principle of non-discrimination, thereby undermining India’s obligations under the ICCPR.

Similarly, the ICERD seeks to eliminate all forms of racial discrimination and advocates for equal treatment before the law, irrespective of race, colour, or national or ethnic origin. By delineating citizenship eligibility based on religious identity, the CAA perpetuates a form of discrimination that runs counter to the objectives of the ICERD. The Act’s exclusion of Muslims from its purview not only exacerbates religious tensions but also reinforces a hierarchy of belonging, thereby undermining the spirit of equality and non-discrimination espoused by the ICERD.

Furthermore, the UN Convention against Torture prohibits the expulsion, return, or extradition of individuals to countries where they may face torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. While the CAA ostensibly aims to provide refuge to persecuted minorities, its exclusive focus on religious identity disregards the broader spectrum of persecution faced by individuals based on political beliefs, caste, gender, or linguistic identity. This selective approach not only undermines the universality of human rights but also raises concerns about the protection of vulnerable populations under the Convention against Torture.

The UDHR, a foundational document in the field of human rights, unequivocally asserts the principle of equality and non-discrimination. Article 2 of the UDHR proclaims that everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms outlined in the Declaration without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinions, national or social origin, property, birth, or other status. By privileging certain religious groups over others, the CAA violates the spirit of this universal declaration and undermines the fundamental principles of equality and non-discrimination enshrined therein. The current form of the Citizenship Amendment Act 2019 can be seen as a violation of international law, specifically the principles of key human rights treaties and conventions that India has signed. By discriminating against immigrants based on their religion, the Act undermines the basic principles of equality, non-discrimination, and international human rights law. At this point, the international community may have an opportunity to raise India’s case at the Security Council and UNGA to ensure accountability for its obligations under these treaties. They can also condemn any legislative measures that perpetuate discrimination and inequality.

CAA and ideology of expansionist nationalism

The Union Home Minister recently declared that the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) aims to create a United India, also known as Akhand Bharat.[1] However, the idea of Akhand Bharat is a controversial and dangerous concept as it promotes expansionist nationalism. This ideology opposes liberal nationalism, secular politics, and democratic values, as well as inclusion, diversity, and social progress. Expansionist nationalism is characterized by chauvinistic mind-sets and jingoistic language that often leads political leaders to identify scapegoats to gain political advantage. If the Union Minister for Home Affairs endorses such statements, it implies that the Indian state has disregarded established principles of international law, along with numerous international treaties and conventions.

Political scientists and jurists have referred to this draconian ideology as a vital stage in Indian politics, one that is moving the country from a modern nation-state to a chauvinistic state. No sane individual can support the idea of establishing a state that is solely for a specific race or religion, or support expansionist ideology hidden under the cover of nationalism or ultra-nationalism. According to recognised international legal principles, any demand for Akhand Bharat amounts to an act of war since it disrupts the other nation’s sovereignty, integrity, and regional territory. There could be dire repercussions for anyone trying to operationalize this expansionist nationalism in any way, whether overt or covert. Such a provocation through an inflammatory statement must be avoided when India has already been facing global isolation on various fronts. Further, such an outburst from the leading political personality may prove costly for India’s international image as a peaceful nation that respects international law and believes in the ethos of the United Nations.

The Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) has been criticized for being an attempt to establish India as a Hindu theocratic state and to promote the expansionist agenda of the current government in New Delhi. This move could lead to escalated tensions between India and its neighbouring countries, as it reflects an expansionist ideology that poses a threat to the stability and peace of the South Asian region. The concept of Akhand Bharat, which refers to the idea of a united India, has historical roots in ancient empires and territorial expansionism. However, under the current BJP government in New Delhi, it has been revived with nationalistic fervour. The proponents of this ideology, influenced by the Hindu nationalist ideologies of Golwalkar, Hedegewar, and Savarkar, seek to restore perceived lost territories, regardless of the diverse identities and sovereign aspirations of neighbouring nations. Such rhetoric is baseless and unrealistic in the modern global political scenario.

In light of the current state of world affairs, the idea of Akhand Bharat is absurd and incompatible with the established norms of international law. This phrase refers to India’s purported expansionist goals, which are masked by claims of historical unity and cultural or religious affinity. Many nations in the region view the idea of annexing adjacent territory in order to create a single, unified Indian state as a clear breach of the concepts of territorial integrity and their sovereignty. This is nothing more than unjustified meddling in the foreign nation’s domestic affairs. This expansionist agenda is evocative of colonial goals and seriously jeopardises the autonomy and sovereignty of India’s neighbours, inciting unrest and instability in the area. The aim of Akhand Bharat has intensified regional rivalries and sparked new territorial issues. This has increased the likelihood of armed conflict and militarization. India’s expansionist goal is viewed with mistrust and trepidation by its neighbours, who worry that it may result in the loss of their sovereignty. A major threat to global peace and stability in South Asia is posed by the pursuit of Akhand Bharat, which exacerbates already-existing tensions and ignites geopolitical rivalries. The international community needs to act appropriately to prevent the issue from getting worse because it is quite concerning.

Advocating the concept of Akhand Bharat, or United India, may potentially harm India’s diplomatic relations with neighbouring countries and the international community. This approach undermines mutual trust and cooperation, hampering diplomatic efforts to resolve longstanding disputes through dialogue and diplomacy. India’s isolationist stance poses a risk of marginalization in regional forums and global alliances, reducing its soft power and influence on the world stage. This fallout may significantly impact India’s economic and strategic interests in the Middle East and South Asia. Therefore, the demand for United India or Akhand Bharat highlights India’s expansionist ambitions, posing a threat to regional stability and international peace in South Asia. This approach disregards the sovereignty and aspirations of neighbouring nations, perpetuating ethnic, religious, and geopolitical tensions. Rather than pursuing expansionist agendas, India should prioritize dialogue, cooperation, and respect for the principles of sovereignty and self-determination to foster genuine peace and prosperity in the region.

(The author is assistant professor of law, University of Delhi)

Views and opinions expressed in this article is solely that of the author and does not necessarily reflect the views or position of SabrangIndia and this site. 

[1] https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/amit-shah-citizenship-amendment-act-caa-why-parsis-christians-caa-eligible-but-not-muslims-amit-shah-explains-5235705#pfrom=home-ndtv_topscroll

The post CAA: An attempt to legitimise expansionist nationalism appeared first on SabrangIndia.

PUCL has maintained through its statements and public position in the last four years that this divisive piece of legislation is a betrayal of the ideals of our freedom struggle, disregards the inclusive and plural history of India and squarely violates the letter and spirit of the Indian Constitution.  It is illegal, constitutionally immoral and unconstitutional as it makes an arbitrary and discriminatory link between religion and citizenship. The Indian Constitution through its citizenship provisions (articles 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10) and the Citizenship Act, 1955 (before the amendment brought in by the CAA 2019) do not  make religion the basis of citizenship.

However unlike both the constitutional provisions as well as existing statutory provisions on citizenship, the CAA 2019 is a statute which is discrimination writ large. While the aim of providing a pathway to citizenship to ‘illegal immigrants’ is to be welcomed, such a pathway cannot violate the Indian Constitution.  The problematic heart of the CAA 2019 is that it chooses to provide eligibility for Indian citizenship to ‘illegal immigrants’ residing in India from the viewpoint of their religion and expressly excludes from its purview Muslims, while including persons belonging to the Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christian community.  Further only those from the above religious backgrounds from three countries, namely Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan can seek the benefits of the law.

Arbitrary, discriminatory

It is important for every Indian to ask, what is the logic of selecting only three Muslim-majority countries and excluding immigrants from the Muslim community?  If one thinks the logic is to create a pathway for citizenship for persecuted minorities, as narrated by the Home Minister in umpteen speeches, this narrative is debunked and exposed by the arbitrary nature of the exclusion of Muslim community and persons from several non-Muslim neighbouring countries from benefit of the law.

It is a well-known fact that there are religious and non-religious persecuted people found in India’s entire neighbourhood including China, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Bhutan, Maldives and Nepal, who too should have been considered, if the intention of the law was indeed to provide succour to persecuted minorities in the region. It should be pointed out here that over 100,000 Sri Lankan refugees of Tamil origin who fled racial persecution in Sri Lanka, (many of whom are Hindu by religion) and a large proportion of whom have been residing in camps in Tamil Nadu for over 40 years. These stateless Srilankan Tamils have been seeking citizenship in India with several generations born and bred in India. They are arbitrarily ignored by the 2019 amendment to the Citizenship Act which considers only persons from the above 3 countries. Moreover, the community that has faced the worst religious persecution in South Asia, being the Rohingya Muslims who have faced military crackdowns over decades, and over the years more than 1.5 million have been forced to flee Myanmar and rendered refugees, are also excluded from the ambit of the law.

It bears noting that people persecuted in Pakistan include the Ahmadiyyas  who are considered heretics and are not allowed to adopt and practice their religion. The only reason they are excluded from the benefits of the law is they claim to be Muslims, albeit persecuted Muslims.  In Bangladesh the LGBTQI community has  been subjected to relentless persecution, but no LGBTQI person can claim the benefit of this law. They stand excluded because the benefit of the CAA 2019 is only on the basis of religion.

The benefit of CAA 2019 is not on the basis of persecution which is a constitutionally permissible ground of classification, but on the ground of belonging to a religion. This prima facie discriminatory piece of legislation goes against the core value of secularism enshrined in the Indian Constitution and also violates Article 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution, under which the protection by the State of persons, both citizens and non-citizens has been underscored. Therefore discrimination against persons solely on the grounds of religion is unacceptable.

Imminent threat of NPR-NRC

As the Home Minister of India indicated, the CAA should not be seen in isolation but as part of a  chronology, with it being followed by the National Population Register (NPR) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC).  First the NPR, being the register of all persons residing in a place, is to be prepared, which is to be followed by the NRC process under the Citizenship Rules, 2003. For conducting NRC, the Local Registrar is empowered to verify and scrutinise the particulars collected of every family and individual and identify those having ‘doubtful’ citizenship, to send for further enquiry. In an empowerment of third party vigilantism, the rules give the power to anyone to ‘object to the inclusion or exclusion of certain names’, from the first list.

The NPR and NRC process will create two categories of citizens in India, Citizens and Doubtful citizens. Those who are not included in the NRC upon failure to provide sufficient documentary proof, could be rendered without citizenship and essentially treated as foreigners or stateless. Depending upon the kind of proof of citizenship required, a threat of detention will hang over the heads of many millions who do not have the documentation required to prove citizenship.

CAA ignores religious and non-religious persecuted people of China, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Bhutan, Maldives and Nepal

The NPR and NRC process gives the Local Registrar unprecedented and unchecked power to target certain communities and individuals. Based on the animus the state has shown towards Muslims there is also a legitimate fear that this power will be exercised with a discriminatory intent. The NPR and NRC will adversely affect not only Muslims who do not have documentation, but also other categories of persons without documents such as single women, LGBT persons estranged from their families, divorced women, homeless people, tribals or poor people. The fears around the NRC are not abstract as seen from the experience in Assam NRC of 2018 which required citizens to prove their citizenship based on documents. The process resulted in 1.9 million Indians being struck of the citizenship rolls, with more than sixty percent of those who were declared non-citizens and illegal migrants being Hindus.

The NPR and NRC process will entrench the discrimination embedded in the CAA. Persons from communities eligible under the CAA will be able to take benefit of the law and apply for citizenship, meanwhile persons belonging to the Muslim community who have been excluded from the benefit of CAA, will be rendered remediless and termed “infiltrators” who cannot be given citizenship under the 2003 amendment to the Citizenship Act, 1955. Those whose citizenship is considered doubtful will potentially be deprived of their right to vote and be subjected to a process of deportation as foreigners. As it is extremely unlikely that any neighbouring country will accept these detainees, they will be indefinitely detained in camps. Thus the animus towards the Muslim community which is at the heart of the CAA/NPR/NRC has serious implications for the future of the Indian polity.

Public opposition ignored

The law has seen overwhelming public opposition. Massive and peaceful protests and sit ins were held in 2019-2020 after the law was passed by citizens, youth from across universities and led by Muslim women from all over the country. The protests focussed on raising awareness about the discrimination and uncertainty of existence Muslims would have to face in their own land of birth and that of their ancestors, if unable to produce requisite documents.

In Delhi, the assertive Muslim youth who coordinated the peaceful and democratic protests, ended up in Jail for exercising their constitutional right to expression and assembly. Several youth have been unjustly and falsely implicated in the communal violence in Delhi in February, 2020 in which 54 persons were killed, with more than 21 being booked under UAPA.  The message sent out to the people was that they should be prepared for reprisals if they challenge the Government’s decisions even through constitutional means by exercising their right to protest in opposition to discriminatory laws that violate the Preambular promise of equality and secularism.

The government’s optics in notifying rules for implementation of the law on 11th of March, 2023, the first day of the holy month of Ramzan for the Muslims, communicates a harsh message of intolerance to a minority community facing the brunt of humiliation on a daily basis with increasing communalism . The notification of the law, which comes around the eve of the Parliamentary elections of 2024, indicates that the ruling party at the centre is promoting divisive politics which will fray the bonds that bind India together.

PUCL strongly condemns this  deeply polarising  decision that has been taken  just weeks from the election and demands that the law be repealed. PUCL has filed an urgent application to stay the implementation of the law in the Supreme Court and challenge the rules notified to implement CAA 2019. PUCL will continue to work to raise awareness of how  discrimination in citizenship laws  is the beginning of the end of the constitutional idea of India.

— Kavita Srivastava, President, V Suresh, General Secretary, PUCL

Courtesy: CounterView

The post CAA disregards India’s inclusive plural ethos, ‘betrays’ ideals of freedom struggle: PUCL appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) will be notifying today, the Rules under the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 (CAA-2019). These rules, called the Citizenship (Amendment) Rules, 2024 will enable the persons eligible under CAA-2019 to apply for grant of Indian citizenship. (1/2)

— Spokesperson, Ministry of Home Affairs (@PIBHomeAffairs) March 11, 2024

Designed to speed the citizenship process for non-Muslim migrants from Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, the CAA fast-tracks the process of granting Indian citizenship specifically to people belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Jain, Buddhist, Parsi, and Christian communities. This process is granted to those who migrated and entered India prior to 2014. The Act has finally been notified after encountering numerous delays and criticism from opposition parties as well as widespread protests, all over the country in 2019 and 2020. It has also seen strong opposition in Assam.

The applications will be submitted in a completely online mode for which a web portal has been provided. (2/2)@HMOIndia @PIB_India @DDNewslive @airnewsalerts

— Spokesperson, Ministry of Home Affairs (@PIBHomeAffairs) March 11, 2024

According to an ANI report, the Home Ministry has stated that the process can be done completely online and eligible people can now submit their applications under the CAA. Officials have also clarified that no additional documentation would be required from applicants.

After the notification from the Home Ministry arrived, opposition politicians from across the country spoke out against the act, calling the government out. Trinamool Congress leader and chief minister of West Bengal, Mamata Bannerjee was among the first opposition leaders to criticise and decry the news. She has stated that the government will be against discrimination, as per a report by NDTV, “If there is any discrimination, we won’t accept it. Be it religion, caste, or linguistics. They won’t be able to give citizenship to anyone in two days. This is just a lollipop and a show-off. After multiple extensions in four years, its implementation two to three days before the election announcement shows that it is being done for political reasons.”

DMK leader and chief minister of Tamil Nadu, MK Stalin has also criticised the move, and took to X to state, “Union BJP Government’s divisive agenda has weaponised the Citizenship Act, turning it from a beacon of humanity to a tool of discrimination based on religion and race through the enactment of CAA. By betraying Muslims and Sri Lankan Tamils, they sowed seeds of division. Despite staunch opposition from democratic forces like DMK, the CAA was passed with the support of BJP’s stooge ADMK. Fearing backlash from the people, the BJP kept the act in cold storage.”

Senior Congress leader and Rajya Sabha MP Jairam Ramesh called the move motivated by election strategy on X as well, “After seeking nine extensions for the notification of the rules, the timing right before the elections is evidently designed to polarise the elections, especially in West Bengal and Assam.”

The Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) has reportedly also filed a petition in the Supreme Court urging for an urgent stay on the CAA. According to the Deccan Herald, IUML leader P K Kunhalikutty stated that they will take the matter to court and argued that it was illegal to link citizenship with religion.

Meanwhile, news has arrived that Delhi Police and Paramilitary forces have been deployed across Delhi, especially in Muslim concentrated areas such as Seelampur, Shaheen Bagh and north east Delhi after the news of the enforcement of rules for the CAA arrived. North East DCP Joy Tirkey stated yesterday, “Arrangements have been put in place in the North East district. Drawing from our unpleasant experience in 2020, which led to significant losses, we have taken proactive measures. The rules are set to be notified today, and the Police Headquarters has provided timely alerts.” The police have also stated they are monitoring social media for any such inflammatory posts.

DCP Tirkey further disclosed that a meeting of the Aman Committee had been convened, where the police engaged with members of both communities. The DCP also told the media as per Mint news, “We have tagged the potential troublemakers and some known criminals. We are in touch with our beat constables and keeping an eye on social media too. We are doing a flag march for two days and will have an extensive flag march from Tuesday. Special care will be taken in sensitive areas through drones.”

Similarly, Assam which saw a strong movement against the CAA as well also saw preventive measures taken by police where about 16 opposition leaders were given a legal notice by the Assam police to retract their statements calling for a ‘sabartmak harta’, as per the Indian Express.

 Related:

Anti-CAA protest: Delhi High Court quashes trial court’s order taking cognizance of FIR against Shabnam Hashmi for holding banner

Union Home Ministry seeks further six months to frame CAA rules, has implementation however begun?

‘Slip of Tongue,’ now says BJP MP who had promised CAA in 7 Days

CAA rules to be framed by March 2024, says Union Minister

Identifying fake Aadhaar, a plot to bring in CAA-NRC?

The post Government notifies CAA regulations, opposition decries it as a means to polarise voters appeared first on SabrangIndia.

What does the CAA 2019 do?

The CAA amends Section 2 of the Citizenship Act of 1955 which defines “illegal migrants”. Through the amendment, a new proviso to Section 2(1)(b) of the Citizenship Act. As per the same, persons belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christian communities from Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan, and who have been exempted by the Central government under the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920, or the Foreigners Act, 1946, shall not be treated as “illegal migrant”. Consequently, such persons shall be eligible to apply for citizenship under the 1955 Act.

However, in what is clearly violative of Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Indian Constitution, the law specifically excludes the Muslim community from the proviso, triggering protests across the country and a slew of petitions before the Supreme Court. The Indian Union Muslim league and at least 149 others have challenged this amendment to the Citizenship Act, 1955. The petitioners challenging the law have submitted that the CAA discriminates against Muslims on the basis of religion. Such religious segregation is without any reasonable differentiation and violates right to quality under Article 14, it has been contended. On December 18, 2019, the apex court had issued notice to the Union of India on that challenge. However since the Rules had not then been framed, the union government had argued against any stay on the amended law.

IUML today challenges notification of CAA Rules

Bar & Bench reported that the Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) one of the Petitioners that had originally challenged the constitutionality of the Act in 2020 has now moved the Supeme Court (SC) to stay Citizenship (Amendment) Rules 2024. IUM: L, a Kerala-based political party, Indian Union Muslim League (IUML), has moved the Supreme Court seeking a stay on the implementation of Citizenship (Amendment) Rules, 2024.The IUML (petitioner), which was one of the first parties to challenge the CAA before the top court in 2019, has now approached the Court to stay the Rules. In 2019, the IUML had also pressed for a stay on the implementation of the Act. However, the Union government had told the Court then that since the rules had not been framed, the implementation of CAA would not take place.

With the Rules being notified on Monday, March 11, the IUML has now moved the Court seeking a stay on the Rules. IUML has also sought directions to refrain from taking action against persons belonging to Muslim community who have been deprived of the benefit to apply for citizenship under the Rules.

As per the application filed, the rules notified on March 11, create a highly truncated and fast-tracked process for grant of citizenship to persons covered under the exemption created by Section 2(1)(b) of the Act, which defines who will not be treated as an “illegal immigrant”. This, the plea states, is manifestly arbitrary and creates an unfair advantage in favour of a class of persons solely on the ground of their religious identity, which is impermissible under articles 14 and 15 of the Indian Constitution.

States protest

As soon as the much feared news broke, questions were raised over motive, intent. Anxiety prevailed especially for the Indian Muslim community but the Rajbanshis of Bengal and Adivasis and small farmers are no less anxious.

This article in Sabrangindia traces the bigotry behind the enactment.

The chief ministers of the governments of West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Kerala released strong statements, not only expressing their condemnation of the CAA, but also asserting that the discriminatory Act would not be implemented in their states and would be contested.

Several commentators have criticised the move as one driven by cynical electoral politics, questioning why the Centre released the Rules at this moment after four years of delays, and condemning the exclusion of Muslims, Sri Lankan Tamils, and many others from the Rules’ criteria. Besides, concerns have been expressed, again, about the over 1,00,000 Afghani refugees whom India has given shelter due to persecution in their home country and similarly close to 40,000 Rohingyas who have fled Myanmaar. Sri Lankan Tamils too reside in many parts of Tamil Nadu and are likely to be (now or in future) be harassed by a vicarious bureaucracy over this amendment.

Since this ignominious amendment was passed, serious questions have been raised on how exactly the government would verify claims of religious persecution, what parameters would be used, and what digital security measures were in place to ensure that the personal data of applicants would remain safe from tampering.

All India Trinamool Congress (@AITCofficial) posted at 10:32 pm on Mon, Mar 11, 2024:
“If the CAA cancels anyone’s citizenship, we will not remain silent.” – Smt @MamataOfficial

“If the CAA cancels anyone’s citizenship, we will not remain silent.” – Smt @MamataOfficial

We await clarification on the new rules under CAA. Bengal will not tolerate any disturbance, and we will not allow this contentious law to deprive anyone. pic.twitter.com/7K423IX8pE

— All India Trinamool Congress (@AITCofficial) March 11, 2024

Chief Minister of Kerala, Pinarayi Vijayan released the following statement on twitter

The Central Government's notification of the Rules to the Citizenship Amendment Act in the wake of the elections is aimed at disquieting the nation. The Ministry of Home Affairs has issued the notification regarding the CAA, just ahead of the announcement of the elections to the…

— Pinarayi Vijayan (@pinarayivijayan) March 11, 2024

Chief Minister Tamil Nadu was clear and straightforward

Union BJP Government's divisive agenda has weaponised the Citizenship Act, turning it from a beacon of humanity to a tool of discrimination based on religion and race through the enactment of #CAA. By betraying Muslims and Sri Lankan Tamils, they sowed seeds of division.

Despite… pic.twitter.com/mbraX6SW10

— M.K.Stalin (@mkstalin) March 11, 2024

Other protests

Assam’s chief minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, has openly threatened that political parties faced the risk of deregistration if they organised anti-CAA protests, citing a ruling of the Gauhati high court in 2023 that declared bandhs as “illegal and unconstitutional”. Meanwhile reports of protests in in Kerala’s Kozhikode, compelled the police to go on a lathi charge. Besides, , late-night vigils were held by student organisations including Fraternity, MSF, and NSU(I) at Jamia Millia Islamia and Hyderabad Central University. The Quint reported protests breaking out against the notification of the Rules on the very same day across multiple districts in Assam. The Indian Express reported student unions burn copies of the CAA, and the opposition declaring a statewide ‘hartal’ on March 13.

A questionable process

A close look at the Rules themselves reveal that applications for the CAA are to be made via an online portal (indiancitizenshiponline.nic.in), on which applicants would be then issued with a digital certificate of registration or a digital certificate of naturalisation.

The Rules further confirm that only persons from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan who belong to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi, or Christian identities would be considered for citizenship under the Act. A person making an application through the CAA for citizenship would thus need to provide a minimum of five to six documents. These include:

1. 1. i) a filled application form;
   2. ii) one of the documents listed under Schedule IA of the Act, including but not limited to land or tenancy records from the origin country, birth certificates, identity documents, land or tenancy records;

iii) one of the documents from Schedule IB such as ration card, Aadhaar card, license, any letter issued by the Government or Court to the applicant with an official stamp, land or tenancy records, electricity papers, school leaving certificates, and others;

1. 1. iv) an affidavit verifying the correctness of statements made, as attested by a Notary/Oath Commissioner/Magistrate;
   2. v) a document providing evidence that an applicant or either of their parents was a citizen of Independent India (passport or birth certificate); and
   3. vi) if available, the copy of an expired Foreign Passport or Residential Permit

This completed application would then be processed by a District Level Committee, and then if verified, the designated officer would administer an oath of allegiance to the applicant in person, then sent to the Empowered Committee. The final digital certificate would be issued with the signature of the chairman of the Empowered Committee.

The online portal further includes guidelines for the composition of the two committees. The Empowered Committee, headed by the Director of Census Operations, is to be formed by an intelligence bureau officer, a Foreigners Regional Registration Officer, a State Informatics Officer, a Postal Officer or Post Master General, a representative of the Railways and from the office of the Principal or Additional Chief Secretary. The District Level Committee would compromise a District Informatics Officer,  representative not below the rank of Naib Tehsildar, a nominee of the Central Government, and a jurisdictional Station Master of Railways. The required quorum for each of the Committees is only two.

Curiously this aspect of the affidavit to be enclosed with the application for citizenship has raised eyebrows and generated comment:

The entire process leaves room for corruption and mistreatment of applicants both at the District Level Committee and with the Empowered Committee.

Who is the DLC and EC? The composition is questionable , which includes Intelligence Bureau officers and vaguely described nominees of the central government, with their meagre quorum of two individuals, creates an uncertain and unfair system of authentication and evaluation.

There are limited measures to check any oversight by members of the District Level and Empowered Committees and to prevent the abuse of power, leaving scope for harassment and abuse. The requirements for documentation themselves discriminate against Muslim, queer, Dalit, Migrant Workers, Farmers and other marginalised individuals who may no longer have access to documents in Schedule IA and IB.

Other serious questions remain: How far will states resist the Centre’s imposition of the CAA? How much can they resist?

The BJP-RSS led Union Government has repeatedly stated that the CAA is not intended for Indian citizens, differs from the National Register of Indian Citizens, and is solely intended for foreigners, the guidelines for accessing a digital certificate of registration seem relevant in their applicability to any suspected ‘foreigners’ in India, along with their connections to the NPR and NRC. In the midst of such a scenario, will those with relative social, economic, and cultural capital choose not to register themselves under the discriminatory Act as an act of protest?

How far should Indian citizens go and what constitutional measures are tenable in the long-term resistance of an unconstitutional Act?

With the elections near –and only some of the opposition parties vocal on the issue—the questions will re-surface. CJP’s experience, every day in the state of Assam, battling the citizenship crisis reveals, that if NPR-and NRC are also implemented as is threatened by this regime—social turmoil will result.

Background

In 2019, The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), from its official twitter handle has deleted a tweet on Amit Shah’s comment on a pan-India NRC (National Register of Citizens). It is not clear when the tweet was deleted, but the move is quite surprising given the fact that Amit Shah has gone on record to say that come what may, there will be no going back on the NRC.

The deleted tweet

(Source – The Week)

Earlier in 2019 during the LokSabha campaign, Amit Shah had promised to remove every single infiltrator from the country by implementing a nationwide National Register of Citizens (NRC). He had said, “We have promised in our manifesto that once Narendra Modi forms the government again, we will implement the NRC across the country. We will remove every single infiltrator from the country. And all the Hindu and Buddhist refugees…we will find each of them, give them Indian citizenship and make them residents here.”

During his rallies in West Bengal where Mamata Banerjee has been one of the most vehement critics of the NRC, he had said that the BJP would ensure that each infiltrator would be thrown into the Bay of Bengal no matter how strongly it was opposed and by whom.

Citizens for Justice and Peace cjp.org.in) has been tracking the government’s moves on the issue consistently

November 2022

Has implementation of CAA 2019 already begun?

The MHA has delegated to 31 districts powers to grant citizenship as per the CAA: The Ministry of Home Affairs in its 2021-22 Annual Report has revealed that it has delegated powers under Citizenship Act to grant citizenship under the controversial 2019 amendment. Delegated powers have been “given” to Collectors of 13 more districts and Home Secretaries of 2 more states. With this, Collectors of 29 districts and Home Secretaries of 9 States have been authorized to grant citizenship in respect of foreigners belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Jain, Buddhist, and Christian or Parsi community from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan.

March 2024

How the Union of India took a giant step towards both NPR & NRC in 2015 without informed consent

This step was taken when information contained in the Aadhaar database was linked with the NPR database without informed consent, a CJP investigation with collaboration indicates

Related:

How dangerous is the CAA + NRC?

CJP spreads awareness on NPR-NRC in Maharashtra

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQS) ABOUT THE CAB/CAA 2019

WHO IS AN INDIAN? (ENGLISH)

CITIZENSHIP LAWS IN INDIA – FAQS

The “CAA”t is out of the bag

BJP deletes Amit Shah’s comment about NRC from its Twitter handle

The post Selective & discriminatory, CAA notification likely to be followed by NPR-NRC appeared first on SabrangIndia.